Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord might be referring to the current changes in the Finance Bill. The thrust of those changes is to make sure that interest in possession trusts and accumulation and maintenance trusts in particular were not exploited, as they have been in the past, for tax avoidance purposes. Apart from the more targeted exceptions in the legislation, the thrust of those arrangements is to align the system with the mainstream system for trusts, which is what discretionary trusts attract.

Lord Rea: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that originally Ofcom's consultation document precluded discussion of the banning of such advertising between 6 pm and 9 pm but that subsequently, under pressure from the Food Standards Agency and a range of other consumer and health organisations, it changed its mind? The reason given for the original decision was that it would cost television companies too much in lost advertising revenue. In whose interests does Ofcom act? Is it in the interests of the wider public, including its health, or in the interests of the broadcasting and advertising industry?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 8B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 8C.
	As I have mentioned in previous debates, the Government accept the principle behind your Lordships' amendment for individual registration, but we believe that we should make changes that affect our democracy only with great care. To do otherwise could cause damage. Therefore, on reflection, we ask that your Lordships' House does not insist on its amendment.
	We have already agreed unanimously, between both your Lordships' House and another place, on a new system for personal identifiers for postal voters, which is of course where the main risk of fraud occurs. We will, as we have committed to do, examine what lessons we learn from this in some form of post-legislative review, as I indicated in our previous debate on the subject.
	The key challenge for us is to ensure that we can get these important measures in place in time for next year's local elections in May. This will be a significant challenge for administrators and the wider electoral community and can happen only if noble Lords approve this Bill, which I hope they will do today. If this Bill is passed today, I hope we can send out the message that your Lordships' House has approved measures which will significantly improve the security of the system. I believe that this is critical to public confidence.
	As noble Lords will know, within this legislation we have in place that the Bill requires personal identifiers for postal and proxy votes to protect against postal voting fraud. It creates two new election offences—it revises the offence of undue influence, enabling the offence to be prosecuted even where influence has not led to any action being taken; it increases the length of time available for the police to carry out investigations; and it provides the statutory secrecy warnings to accompany postal voting papers. These measures, and in particular the use of postal voting identifiers, will help to eliminate electoral fraud and increase public confidence. This is a comprehensive package of important changes. I believe it deserves, and rightly has, the support of your Lordships' House.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 8B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 8C.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I find myself back in a familiar place. Indeed, I am reminded of Sisyphus, who was condemned by the gods to roll a rock up a mountain, only for the stone to fall back on its own weight—a punishment of futile and hopeless labour. The hopeless labour has been to try to persuade the Government on at least three occasions to make it a requirement to provide personal identifiers for all those on the electoral register, not just postal voters. The Government conceded that early on during the progress of the Bill through this place, as the Minister said.
	We have had a hopeless task getting everyone to have to provide identifiers, despite recommendations from the Electoral Commission, the opinion of your Lordships' House which has been positively tested on at least two occasions, calls from local authorities nationwide and, most intriguingly, despite calls from members of the Minister's own party from across the country. Letters to the Minister's department in response to consultation would have made extremely interesting reading, if only we had received them in time.
	My honourable friend in the other place, Oliver Heald, asked in November for us to see the response to the consultation on these matters. On 15 June, after the first amendments had gone back to the other place for consideration, the consultation responses arrived. I have them here. Within them, the honourable Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk supported the view of the Member for Harlow—a Labour Minister in another place—who stated that he would support the use of individual identifiers, as did the London Borough of Merton, the metropolitan borough of Bury and the Borough of Telford and Wrekin, to name but a few. The East Midlands branch of the Association of Electoral Administrators states that,
	"individual forms are the only option, particularly if administrators are going to be required to check the identifiers against each declaration of identity/security statement for postal votes submitted at election time".
	Noble Lords will recall the series of fiascos in Birmingham council and my statement on the previous occasion that we considered this matter about people who were in Pakistan managing to appear at the same time at the polling stations in Coventry. The Minister reminded noble Lords on that previous occasion that 10 new security measures were introduced by the Bill, one of which is the need to provide a signature at the polling station, which is contained in Schedule 1. However, there is no formalised means of verifying that signature.
	Efforts have been rejected on grounds of convenience. The Minister cited the registration system in Northern Ireland as an example of where personal identifiers have put people off registration. But over a million people are on the register in Northern Ireland—some 91 per cent of the voting-age population. The Minister referred to the legislation going through Parliament as we speak that will revolutionise registration in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. However, the reality is that that Bill does nothing to seek to end personal identifiers but seeks to alter the timing of the registration canvass. In fact, registration in Northern Ireland is at a high level of participation and a high level of security, so criticism of personal identifiers in that context is a red herring.
	We are at the end of a long road regarding this Bill. We on this side are pleased with many of the measures that we have helped to introduce, especially the introduction of personal identifiers in postal voting. Much more could have been done to secure the integrity of the vote if we had been able to secure this final aspect of obtaining individual registration and individual identifiers. Both opposition parties in this House, supported by Her Majesty's Opposition and other parties in another place, have made gallant efforts which have been consistently ignored on an issue agreed in principle by all.
	I will not take this matter any further today, but it is a fact that now we will either have to wait until the next piece of legislation that would enable identifiers to be introduced—which, given the nature of this place and this Parliament, will be a long time coming—or we will have to wait for a different Government to put the balance right. I accept that this matter has twice been referred back to the other place. This House has done its duty. It has drawn more than attention to this matter. It will not go away; but, for today, I do not intend to press the matter to a vote.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the Bill does much to improve the quality of electoral administration in this country and will therefore make a significant contribution to improving the health of our democracy. It makes significant improvements to electoral legislation as we left it in 2000. We have clearly all learnt lessons since then about the issues that we failed to address—in particular, those relating to loans to parties and the potential for postal vote fraud in the 2000 legislation. But there is still very much more to do on some of these issues, and I think that the evidence just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is something to which we shall return in due course.
	We have made progress on these issues—in particular, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, on tightening up the potential for postal vote fraud. We have ensured that a person who returns a postal vote is the same as the person who applied for it, and that is very welcome. But we have not yet ensured that the person who applies for and returns a postal vote is the same as the person listed on the electoral register, and I think that we shall return to that issue at some point in the future.

Lord Goodhart: By objecting to Clause 1, it looks as though I am trying to wreck the Bill, but that is not the intention. My intention is simply to probe the circumstances and I want to know, in particular, why we are having this considerably extensive new Bill instead of merely amending the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. We debated this issue to some extent on the Motion moved last week concerning whether the House should go into Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others spoke on that occasion—but I think that it is necessary to go over these issues fairly briefly again.
	I believe that it would have been much better to begin with amendments to the 2001 Act. Following changes to the Bill, in what way does it differ from that Act? Several of the differences are set out in a letter of 27 June from the Minister to me and in the annex to that letter. I accept that Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill are new and that they would be additions rather than amendments to the 2001 Act, but perhaps I may compare what we now find in Part 1 of the Bill with what is in the Act.
	Four changes have been proposed by the Government. First, they say that the procedure under the 2001 Act is too onerous. That may well be true, and I acknowledged that at Second Reading. It is supported by two examples in the annex to the Minister's letter. Therefore, we shall need amendments to replace some sections of the 2001 Act with Clauses 13 to 20 of the Bill but I do not believe that that would be a fundamental change. Secondly, under the 2001 Act, there is a need to remove a legal burden. There is no power to remove an administrative or financial burden which does not remove any legal burden. Again, I accept that as desirable, but it requires only a short and simple amendment to the 2001 Act.
	Thirdly, there is an inability under the 2001 Act to use the procedure under that Act to change legislation within the previous two years. No example is given of any problem that has arisen, but it simply requires the removal of a few words in Section 1(2)(a) and (4) of the 2001 Act. Fourthly, there is an inability under the 2001 Act to confer powers of delegated legislation by order. It is highly questionable whether that is desirable, but again if it were desirable it could be dealt with by a short amendment. Finally, there is the absence of any power under the 2001 Act to remove burdens arising other than from the carrying on of activities. That again needs only a very short amendment.
	Therefore, four short amendments are needed to the substantive provisions of the 2001 Act plus a rather more substantial amendment to the sections dealing with procedure. Why did the Government not start from there instead of pressing for excessive powers to amend primary legislation? The suspicion is that the Government wanted the power to enable them to bypass most of the existing parliamentary checks on the legislative process. Given that the Government are very fond of the expression "fit for purpose", I ask the Minister what is the purpose for which this Bill, in its original form, was thought to be fit?

Lord Norton of Louth: I too oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. The clause now constitutes the principal mischief in the Bill. In essence, it is a Trojan horse; it may never be used as such but the potential is there. The institution under threat from the inclusion of the clause is Parliament itself. Why is this clause before us? We have not had a satisfactory answer, either in respect of process or substance? By process, I refer to the Bill being brought before us without being subjected to any pre-legislative scrutiny. The explanation given is that the Bill is urgent. History demonstrates that any Bill brought forward by Government on the grounds of urgency requires the most careful scrutiny. What urgency attaches to the provisions of this clause? There is a case for getting rid of red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy, but that is not in itself sufficient to justify bringing forward this measure and trying to get it passed in best "Yes Minister" style, before Parliament has had an opportunity to grasp its full implications.
	Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, if there are particular burdens that need to be removed urgently, what are they? In our discussions so far we have not been awash with examples. Which of the few examples listed in the annex to the Minister's letter of 27 June justify rushed legislation? At best, the Minister has made the case for some action to be taken, but not for it to be treated as urgent. Indeed I remind the Minister what his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said only a few minutes ago about the Electoral Administration Bill: we should make changes that affect our democratic arrangements only with great care. I believe that this Bill impinges on our system of representative parliamentary government.
	We still wait for a compelling, substantive case to be made for the provisions of this clause. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the motivation for this clause is that officials find the mechanisms under the 2001 Act overly difficult. The problem, as I argued, lies within government, not Parliament. The Minister's letter of 27 June, to which frequent reference was made in our earlier discussions, concedes that the Government consider the provisions onerous and complex. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, points out in the annex to the letter, departments "perceive" that RROs are disproportionately onerous.
	Even if we accept that the existing mechanisms are problematic for officials, that does not make a case for the clause as drafted. It may make the case for finding some alternative methods to the existing one, but it does not demonstrate that the provisions of this clause create a preferable method. All the Government have done so far is make a case against the provisions in the 2001 Act. They have not made a case for the provisions in Clause 1.
	There are alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out that one could have an amendment to the 2001 Act. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Goschen raised the prospect of a deregulation Bill. If such a Bill was brought forward on a regular—say, biennial—basis, it would avoid all the problems associated with the clause. It would be confined to those burdens that the Government say they wish to be removed. Minor burdens incorporated into such a Bill would presumably require little attention; more significant ones would attract greater scrutiny. It would probably lessen the burden on departments, since they would not need to bring forward the mass of different orders that they will presumably have to bring forward if the provisions of the clause are as necessary as we are told. Above all, a regular deregulation Bill would avoid the major constitutional implications arising from the provisions of the Bill; principally, this clause.
	In short, the Government have made a case for some change to facilitate deregulation, but have not made a compelling case for Clause 1. As it stands, the clause's potential renders it dangerous.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful as ever to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, but it is a rerun of a debate we had at Second Reading, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, a debate we had before we entered into the Committee stage. There appears to be a measure of agreement among noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, although perhaps not absolute agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seemed to accept that there are two perhaps, three, new areas. The noble Lord also accepted that the old procedure under the 2001 Act for instruments of deregulation is too onerous. He then described how he thought that the Act could be amended and took the point that amendments to the procedure for deregulating by order would need to be substantial.
	So there is a measure of agreement, but there is also a measure of disagreement in the views of opposition Members as to how we should improve or modify the Bill. At the heart of it, for opposition Members, the question remains why we did not simply amend the 2001 Act. Of course, we could have done and the Bill clearly builds on the strengths of that Act. However, if we had amended the 2001 Act, the legislation would have been spread over two enactments. It would have been messy and, I would argue, difficult to use by departments which must deliver better regulation. If anything can be learnt from the experience of the 2001 Act, it is that it must be clear how departments can deliver better regulation by order.
	What is really important here is evidence about why the Bill should work better, and deliver more than the 2001 Act, and specifically what the Government intend to deliver through the Bill. This is what I shall focus on in responding to the points made by Members of the Committee.
	What is clear from the debate in this House is that we all agree that there is a need to deregulate. What has been lacking so far is the actual and swift delivery of wide-ranging better regulation measures to effect real change on the ground. The order-making power in Clause 1 will allow us to remove or reduce burdens in a way that the 2001 Act did not.
	The definition of burden in the Bill is substantially different from that in the 2001 Act. It is outcome-focused—focused on why legislation should be reformed, rather than on how legislation can be reformed. What I mean by that is that the 2001 Act required disproportionate and sometimes nugatory analysis. The department proposing an order had to carry out a large amount of legal analysis on whether the proposal removed, reduced, re-enacted or imposed specific legal restrictions, requirements, conditions, sanctions, or limits on statutory powers. The analysis required by the 2001 Act often had little to do with the desired better regulation outcome of, for instance, reduced costs on business or charitable organisations. It is certainly not as direct as the current definition of burden, which will require Ministers to focus on the financial costs or obstacles to productivity that the order would reduce or remove.
	Those stakeholders whom we consulted argued forcefully that orders should be an outcome-focused tool to deliver better regulation. To cite but one of those consulted, the Federation of Small Businesses, it told us:
	"The concept of a burden as a legal one means that there is a wide gap between what the small business man or woman would consider to be a burden and what a legislator—or even an enforcer—would consider to be a burden".
	The new definition of burden in the Bill does exactly this: it forces those using the order-making power in Clause 1 to focus on the practical benefits that the order will deliver; it forces those using the order-making power to focus on the financial cost, administrative inconvenience, obstacle to efficiency, profitability or productivity or sanctions that the order will reduce or remove. That is not necessarily about reducing analysis that has proved a disincentive for departments' use of the 2001 Act, but about ensuring that the analysis and evidence is proportionate and is focused on the costs and impacts, on the economic, financial and other practical evidence that reforms are worth while. It is also about ensuring that the policy makers and economists focus on the evidence that demonstrates why a proposal is necessary. The change in emphasis that the definition of burden in Clause 1 requires is therefore completely different from the justification necessary under the 2001 Act.
	As we have stated on a number of occasions, the Bill, and Clause 1 in particular, does not stand in isolation and neither can we consider it in a narrowly-focused way. The Bill is part of a much wider government agenda of cutting the red tape that is such a burden on the public sector, businesses, charities, and so on. As part of this agenda, the Government are also measuring the costs of all administrative burdens. The outcome of this work and the concerted push across government departments for better regulation will be reflected in concrete simplification plans from each department, to be published later in the year. In those plans, government departments will identify deregulatory measures, which they will deliver with the most appropriate measures available to them.
	The Government have also accepted in full Philip Hampton's report on more efficient approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement, in which he recommended the merger of regulators into seven thematic groups. The Government's better regulation aims have become more ambitious since 2001, when the present Act was devised. We have found that the 2001 Act does not offer the appropriate alternative mechanism that the radical programme of reform demands.
	It may be helpful if I cite four examples of generic better regulation proposals which orders under the 2001 Act could not deliver: first, the reduction of administrative burdens if no legal burdens in the narrow technical sense of the original Act are reduced or removed; secondly, delivering uncontroversial Hampton mergers to reduce the burden of inspection and compliance on the regulated; thirdly, the limited power to sub-delegate, which meant that under the 2001 Act carrying risk-based inspections and enforcement through to the detailed level of regulations was more difficult; and fourthly, reducing the burdens on individuals or others that affected them passively rather than actively.
	There is recognition here and at EU level of the need to identify and remove administrative burdens. That is why the Government have done their ground-breaking analysis of the cost of all administrative burdens on the regulated. In their simplification plans, departments will set challenging targets to remove unnecessary administrative burdens.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is an amendment with which I am familiar, in the sense that noble Lords opposite frequently table a reporting amendment to Bills to ensure that the standard and threshold of holding the Government to account are raised. I have some sympathy with that intent; reporting should certainly be part of the process. Yet admirable though this amendment is, ultimately I cannot support it. However, I can certainly support its spirit and advise your Lordships that we have already given a very clear commitment to having a review process. My honourable friend Mr McFadden gave that commitment in another place during a debate on a similar amendment.
	We certainly support the idea that we should constantly look at how well the reforms are working. It was in part the review of the 2001 Act which persuaded us that we needed a rather more dramatic piece of legislation that would be more effective. So, if you like, a review of the legislative framework has already had an impact. It has meant that we have tried to design better procedures for the process of deregulating.
	We also believe that all departments should keep their legislation under review. That is why the Government set up the Panel on Regulatory Accountability—the PRA— chaired by the Prime Minister, and why there are regulatory reform Ministers in each of the main regulatory departments. That is also why there is a Better Regulation Commission, keeping an eye on them all.
	Departments are currently reviewing their regulations and drafting simplification plans, which include measures to reduce administrative burdens on business and the public and voluntary sectors. These will be published by the time of the PBR, later this year. The Better Regulation Commission will provide independent advice to government from business and other external stakeholders about new regulatory proposals and the Government's overall regulatory performance. It will continue the challenge role carried out by the Better Regulation Task Force.
	It is perhaps worth saying that since 1 January this year, the commission has taken on a new responsibility to review the simplification plans that government departments and some independent regulators are preparing. The commission sits on the PRA committee reviewing the plans; and its opinion of a department's plan will be made public at the time of the plan's publication.
	Departments will be required to revise these plans annually; as part of that, they will include details of simplifications delivered, including orders made the previous year. All departments are also obliged to report on their better regulation work as part of their annual reports, as they have done for the past two years. That picks up something referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with regard to a wider review to look at areas where the deregulatory genie has not yet reached. Members of your Lordships' House will be aware that while debating a similar amendment in another place, we gave very clear commitments.
	In addition to departmental reports, we would expect departmental Select Committees to report on the annual reports I referred to, as appropriate. The Commons Regulatory Reform Committee, with its new expanded remit, will also take interest in these reports and departmental simplifications plans.
	Although I agree that we should be open to reviewing orders, it would be unnecessarily prescriptive to write that into the Bill. I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House share my view and that of Members in another place that there must be a cultural shift within Whitehall as a whole to deliver the real benefits on the ground to those who are being regulated. While we debate the Bill here, it may seem as though we are debating something in isolation, but Members of your Lordships' House may not see in the same way the work being carried out throughout the departments. There is a much greater desire to move the deregulatory agenda on and the Bill is a reflection of that not an absolute in itself.
	The amendment would impose an annual reporting cycle on the Government, which would be an unnecessary burden and may well deflect attention from the important work done by the task force, the commission and the various committees that look at regulations. It would be contrary to the spirit and the purpose of the Bill. Although I understand and sympathise with the desire to have annual reports, in the end it would be counter productive.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to comments that I made in earlier debates, possibly when I was summarising the portal that we have set up to encourage greater public participation in the deregulatory drive throughout government. That portal provides us with a sensible approach because it enables a much more interactive and interrogative means for business, the voluntary and public sectors, and people who require and are part of the general deregulatory flow to bring forward their propositions for deregulation. The Better Regulation Executive is currently discussing with departments the best way to use that portal so that we can have a regular summary of the progress that has been made towards particular items of deregulation that people have brought forward. That would provide us with a useful public window for what we are trying to achieve in a way that people can understand. Such practical measures would achieve much more than a burdensome annual report, which runs against the spirit of the Bill in terms of deregulation and ignores the important point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we should encourage departments which are less enthusiastic about deregulation than other departments who are keen to move that agenda forward.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister talks about producing this report as a burden. He has given us a great description of the many excellent internal arrangements that will try to get more and better deregulation. But for goodness sake, you cannot describe as a burden the Government's duty, having legislated for a Bill about which Parliament has many doubts, to tell Parliament how it is working. It will not be difficult at all because they will know the answer to all those questions. The only one that might present slight difficulties is the question of how much impact there has been in a short space of time, but I suspect that the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred—those who are disadvantaged by any measure—will soon talk about the impact. They will not wait a year to do it. It is extraordinary in this case, where we have a Bill that Parliament is doubtful, about to say that the Government think that the report would be a burden.

Baroness Wilcox: I am impressed and delighted by the number of people who have taken part in this debate. I was happy to hear the warm words of the Minister, and I thought that we were getting somewhere; but now I feel that we are not. We are back in the debate that we had on the 2001 Bill, saying all these warm things.
	The Minister says that he wants this to be dramatic and effective—but "dramatic and effective" means the transparency of a formal reporting system. I pick up on the point made so well by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, whom I am delighted to see taking part in debates on these amendments. I hope that he will stay with us throughout all this, because the points that he makes are certainly being picked up elsewhere. But if the Bill requires every Minister from every department and his senior officials have to report to Parliament, it will be self-evident when they have failed to pick up something or have done nothing. It will all be there for us to see.
	At this stage, I shall not press the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again and see how much support there has been for such an amendment right across the House. That does not necessarily mean that my wording is perfect and it is the Minister's Bill and his right to come back with whatever wording he likes. But unless we start hardening up and putting things on the face of this Bill, we are merely using warm words and wasting our time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Waddington: I had an opportunity of trailing this new clause the other day, so I shall try not to dwell too long on what I said then.
	Most of the regulatory burden on business has its origin in Europe, and many may think that a deregulatory initiative that does not recognise that fact is little more than window dressing. The Government said that better and less regulation was a priority of the EU, but the figures that they cite in support of that proposition show nothing of the sort. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Commission had dropped more than 65 proposed pieces of legislation and had undertaken to simplify up to 1,400 pieces of legislation. In plain English, that means that while some measures in the pipeline are not going to be taken any further, there are no plans whatever to repeal any existing legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seems reluctant to admit that to the best of my knowledge not one single measure introduced by the Commission over the years has ever been repealed. That is hardly surprising. If you have a system under which only the Commission can introduce legislation, it is only the Commission that can introduce repealing legislation, and it is not in its nature to do so.
	Where does that leave us? Have we just to accept that a burden placed on business is irremovable, and there is nothing to be done about it if that burden has been placed as a result of a decision in Europe? I suggest that if Parliament so wills, there is something we can do about it, and this new clause points the way. If the new clause is accepted, three things will happen. First, it will be plainly stated in legislation—for the first time, I think —that the 1972 Act, although of great importance, is no different from any other Act of Parliament. With the European Communities Act 1972, there was, in the words of noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, in the Factortame case, a voluntary surrender of sovereignty. What has been given, however, can be taken away. The Act can be repealed by any other Act, and other legislation can disapply it in specified cases. It is no bad thing for Parliament to assert that fact. If it does not, the time may come when the courts say, "It's too late to assert that the 1972 Act is like any other Act; too late to ask the courts to affirm a law which contradicts a treaty obligation, even if Parliament states in plain and unambiguous terms that that is the law's intent".
	I must emphasise that the new clause is not an invitation to the Government to break our EU treaty obligations. It is a reminder that Parliament is sovereign and can, by appropriate legislation, override earlier legislation, none of which is entrenched, and can certainly, if it so wishes, use machinery such as is provided in the Bill to make laws relating to Community obligations. The clause does not attack the 1972 Act, but merely states that, notwithstanding what is contained in the 1972 Act, a Minister may make an order removing or reducing a burden of the type referred to in Clause 1, and we can ensure by the use of clear and unambiguous words that the order is binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom. The new clause is a timely reminder of Parliament's rights—an assertion of Parliament's sovereignty.
	Secondly, I want to be sure that a Minister is able to make a legally binding and effective deregulation order where the original order was made in purported compliance with the 1972 Act, but in fact went further than was necessary to meet our EU obligations. Surely the Bill should make it clear that a new order could be brought into force doing no more than is strictly necessary to comply with the EU law. When we were last in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seemed to be suggesting that the powers in this Bill could be used to get rid of what is often called "gold-plating". I suppose it depends what one means by gold-plating, but I want to make absolutely sure that a Minister will have the power to revisit regulations that have been made under the 1972 Act, but which on later consideration are thought to go further than necessary to meet the Community obligation in point. The new clause would give that assurance.
	I can give two examples where the new clause might be helpful. One example of how the power might be used is in relation to the droit de suite directive, which gives artists the right to a cut when their works are resold. Although the Government opposed the directive, and it was imposed on us only by majority voting, the Minister did not take what many might have thought was the obvious course of implementing the directive to the letter, but proceeded to enlarge its scope dramatically by applying it to transactions of far less value than those covered by the agreed scheme. This provision could be used to take the regulations back to what is strictly required.
	Another example was highlighted by a case in the Court of Appeal the other day. Under the EU regulations, boats less than 10 metres in length do not have to keep records of their fish catches. In Britain there is no such exemption for small boats. In that way Defra makes the common fisheries policy even more onerous than is necessary for many of our fishermen, and ensures, incidentally, not that fish stocks are preserved but that the fish are caught not by British fishermen but by those of other nations.
	This new clause is an assertion of sovereignty and would meet the need to ensure that the Bill's machinery can be used in respect of orders made under the 1972 Act, in particular when an order has gone further than is necessary to meet the Community obligation. Finally, the new clause would enable the Government in an exceptional case, and after appropriate negotiations, to say to our partners in Europe and/or the Commission, that we insist on deregulating on our own terms and propose to make such deregulatory law binding on the judiciary in this country, notwithstanding the 1972 Act. I submit that that is a common-sense approach. It lacks common sense and it is an insult to Parliament to say that what is done in Europe, however absurd it may be, is inevitable and that in no circumstances can Parliament touch it. With that I could never agree. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I too have signed this amendment, so shall speak to it. I remind the Committee of the 1972 Act and the debates which we had in Parliament at that time. As I was a Member of the House of Commons and took part in those debates, I have a memory of what was said about the impact that the 1972 Act would have on British life. We were assured when we were giving away the right to make our own rules that we had the veto. There was the "empty chair" situation, whereby nothing really mattered because if things affected us adversely, we could veto them. But times have changed. Gradually, over a period of time, ratchet by ratchet, treaty by treaty, the veto has been virtually taken away. Now, it almost no longer exists and everything is done by qualified majority. When regulations and directives are made, the United Kingdom has an influence on those decisions of only about 8.5 per cent. One could say that 55 per cent or 60 per cent, or whatever, of our laws are not being made here in Westminster, but that they are being made in Brussels by 24 countries, including ourselves, on the basis of qualified majority voting, and that decisions that are inimical to our own interests may very well be made.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, attempts to deal with this and I hope that it would deal with the matter if it were accepted. It makes the assertion that British sovereignty remains completely intact, given that all appearances suggest that it does not. In Committee on 3 July the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated:
	"We want open markets—that is what the single European market is about".—[Official Report, 3/7/06; col. 44.]
	But, of course, we are not simply talking about the single European market; and, in any event, only10 per cent of our GDP is involved in such trade, which is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would have made had he not had to visit his physician today. However, the regulations that come from Brussels affect the whole of British industry, not just the 10 per cent of it that is involved with the European Community. Regulations are being placed on areas of our industrial and, indeed, our national and political life, that are completely unnecessary for operations in this country and are sometimes not necessary in respect of the European Union, either.
	In addition, because we are part of the EC and the European single market, we are not allowed to decide what our trading policy should be. The results of that have been seen just recently, when the European Union placed tariffs on shoes coming from China and Vietnam. Perhaps people think that that does not matter, but it does. It will certainly matter to people with children, because we now find that the imposition of those tariffs will put 15 per cent on the cost of British shoes—so we have lost control of our trading arrangements.
	The other point I wish to make is that we are not really in a European Union market that believes in free trade, which, I thought that Her Majesty's Government, the Opposition and everyone else believed in. In fact, the single market is a closed market and access to it is only by agreement and is not open in the true sense of the word. So, again I say that the amendment is important.
	Once a regulation has been made, as noble Lords will know, it is incumbent on this country to put it into operation, whether it is gold-plated or not. Once a regulation is made by the Council of Ministers and once qualified majority voting is applied, it is incumbent on this country to put it into operation and there is nothing we can do to alter it.
	What are the consequences of that? I have been questioning the Government about a recent consequence which arises from the hazardous waste directive. The directive affects the use of lead and some other metals in electrical and electronic goods, and it will affect industries in this country to a large degree. It will put up their costs and, indeed, will put some companies out of business. I have tabled Questions to the Government about this, to which the Answer has been, "Well, we can't do anything about it, and it's in the best interests of the single market that we can't." So, once a regulation is made, it does not matter how much it costs industry in this country, it has to be imposed and there is nothing that our Government can do about it. The cost of the directive throughout Europe will be about £44 billion, yet it is imposed on individual countries and there is nothing that they can do to protect their industries from possible bankruptcy. One could give all sorts of examples of the way in which the regulation operates in the European Union.
	At Question Time today, the Lord Chancellor accused me of being anti-European. That simply is not true. I am not anti-European: I am simply anti-European Union and anti the impositions that it makes on our sovereignty and on our industry and national life. It affects not only our trade but virtually everything, and we are not the only ones involved. The other day, the Bavarian environment Minister, Werner Schnappauf, talking about European over-regulation, said that in the 1990s the German regions had to comply with 90 regulations a year but that now the figure is closer to 500 a year. If that is happening in Germany, it must also be happening in this country. Thus, there has been a five-and-a-half-fold increase in the number of regulations since the 1990s, and that is an enormous burden on our industry and on the country generally.
	I have spoken for long enough—I am sure that some people think that I have spoken for too long—but I feel very strongly about the way that we are governed by regulations from the EU, which, in the context of the United Kingdom, have no real relevance. I believe that, by agreeing to the amendment, something could be done to mitigate the baleful effects which I fear come from our membership of the European Union and the way that it is operated.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I support my noble friend's amendment. I speak with a very clear memory of having taken the financial resolution to the European Communities Bill, as it then was, through the House of Commons. It was an extremely unusual procedure because an entire day was given to debating the financial resolution in contra-distinction to the normal maximum of one and a half hours. In those days, I was a very firm supporter of British membership of the European Union, or the Common Market, as it was then called. I wrote an article, which was quoted in a number of places, called Integration or Isolation—the title speaks for itself. However, my experience since then has shown that that has altogether got out of control; it has gone too far. Although I do not for one moment go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the amendment moved by my noble friend and the very measured terms in which he moved it are far short of the apocalyptic wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
	My noble friend made three points. The first was that it is important that the British Parliament should assert what has been at the heart of our jurisprudence over centuries: the supremacy of Parliament. I could quote a number of statements by prominent jurists to make it clear that, as is always said, no Parliament can bind its successor and that the courts have an inalienable duty to apply the law as propounded by Parliament. I believe that we are in danger of allowing the 1972 Act somehow to become part of a constitution that cannot be amended by the British Parliament. My noble friend has stated that as his first reason for his amendment and I think he is right.
	His second reason was his clear assertion—here he is at one with Ministers—of the wish to avoid the charge of gold-plating. It seems to me that, in these circumstances, it is entirely right that when an order falls to be made to implement a European directive, it should be perfectly possible to implement it in a way that does not involve gold-plating. We have had a recent example of the European directive on the use of lead in manufacturing which immediately had all the organ builders in Britain up in arms. The Government then had to say, "Oh, but it does not apply to organ builders". They had no power to say that because the directive was completely sweeping. Would they not have preferred a procedure under which they could have said, "We are going to interpret this order in this way", and so it would not apply to the people who provide one of the glories of the Anglican Church and other Churches, the tradition of organ music?
	When my noble friend came to his third point, on which such emphasis was laid by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, he was extremely careful to say that this would have to be only at the end of extremely careful diplomatic discussion. It could not simply be a question of kicking sand in the commissioners' faces, but there would be a case in those circumstances for saying, "Look, I am afraid we must ask for a derogation". To secure that, they would need the power to implement the order differently from what the Commission had perhaps assumed.
	That does not seem to go against this country's obligations, particularly under the 1972 Act, to the European Union in any way, but provides the Government with an avenue of escape. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said it would clearly be controversial and entirely wrong to do it as an order under the Bill. But the point is that this Bill will be an Act, and the Government would clearly only do it if it had wide support in the country. They would say "We are not going to do it as the Europeans apparently expect; we have negotiated that, it has been agreed, and we now have the power to do it differently". In those circumstances, I see my noble friend's amendment as restating an important principle—the sovereignty of Parliament—in a way that gives the Government avenues of escape, so that we can avoid some of the absurdities which have landed burdens on industry and others in the country.
	I have never been regarded as one of the "usual suspects", to quote again the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. On the contrary, I have usually been regarded as a warm supporter of membership of the European Union, and have been so all along. There must be some flexibility, however. The "magic words", as they have been described in another place, in my noble friend's amendment—
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972"—
	would bind the courts. They would have to have regard to a later Act passed by Parliament. My noble friend's amendment is a careful, modestly worded proposal for something we could certainly accept.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I certainly was not laughing at the plight of farmers. I fully accept that many farmers are struggling to make ends meet and to conduct their businesses as we would all wish them to.
	I have no doubt that, because of its deregulatory spirit, our legislation is designed to make easier the regulatory regime for farming businesses. We seek a regulatory regime that is in balance and that works in everyone's interests. I see no mirth in that.
	The amendment is rather different. In pure drafting terms, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that its inclusion would add nothing to the Bill, as orders validly made under Clause 1 are already binding in any legal proceedings in the UK, by virtue of their being UK legislation.
	However, the intention behind the amendment, however carefully argued, seems to be to underline that the power in Clause 1 could be used to enact legislation that is inconsistent with Community obligations—hence the words,
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972".
	Indeed, it would appear that the new clause is intended to provide for an express order-making power to override Community law.
	Despite what I have heard, I think that the new clause would pretty speedily lead to infraction proceedings, and would be likely to be found in breach of Community law by the European Court of Justice. That is not just my view; it is also that ofMr William Cash, who tabled a similar amendment on Report in the House of Commons. In promoting his amendment, he conceded that if orders were passed that were incompatible with Community law:
	"Predictably, there would be ... infraction proceedings.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/06; col.757.]
	Furthermore, if the power provided by the new clause were used to make an order incompatible with Community law, the Minister responsible would be in breach of the Ministerial Code, section 1 of which requires a Minister to comply with the UK's international obligations.
	In domestic court proceedings, judges would be required to regard an order made under the power provided by the proposed new clause as binding, notwithstanding the European Communities Act, and thus notwithstanding the usual requirement under the Act for domestic judges to follow the case law of the European Court of Justice. However, that would not prevent the ECJ finding that the order breaches Community law.
	It is perhaps worth noting that, were an order to be made under the proposed clause that was incompatible with Community law, it could be followed by proceedings seeking either a lump-sum fine or a daily penalty fine until the UK came into compliance with Community law.
	Furthermore, when a member state is clearly flouting Community law and in so doing causing financial or other harm, the Commission may at short notice seek interim relief—an injunction—from the president of the European Court of Justice, as happened in the now much-cited Factortamecase.
	Damages are also available where a member state infringes a Community rule of law conferring rights on an individual or company where the infringement is "sufficiently serious" and a causal link can be shown. It would be extremely difficult to avoid liability for such damages in appropriate cases.
	I cannot see that the new clause takes us very far; nor do I think that it achieves part of what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, sought in moving it, which was to prevent over-implementation—the gold-plating of which he and, for that matter, Ministers are wary. I think that I can make the case that the amendment is unnecessary to deal with gold-plating. Clause 1 can already be used to remove it—a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in opposing the amendment.
	On gold-plating, as I think I explained at Second Reading, and I am sure I have done since, we have also put in place the Davidson review, which is considering the over-implementation of EU legislation. We have called for evidence for that, and the review will report to Government in the autumn. No doubt that will stimulate wide public debate, which is right and will be very helpful to us and the regulatory framework.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the points that I have made: that the power is already in the Bill, the legislation would be contrary to Community obligations and it would make the Bill and its order-making power highly controversial. In absolute terms, Parliament could revoke the 1972 Act if it wanted to because ultimately it is supreme. I see no need for the amendment. It would not achieve what the mover wants it to achieve—an end to gold-plating. Ultimately, Parliament is sovereign. If we were to adopt the amendment, it would run us into difficulties when working with our European partners and would be likely to lead to infraction proceedings, which could be equally damaging for our reputation in the European international community. For all those reasons, I must resist the amendment.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about UK deployments to Afghanistan."On Thursday, I spoke about Afghanistan during the defence debate. I reiterate the enormous debt we owe to the British soldiers who have given their lives, and who have been injured, serving there. I also salute the bravery of all of our forces working to bring about lasting change in Afghanistan. "On Thursday, I also said we had received requests for additional forces in Helmand and that I would announce our response as soon as possible. I will do that today. But first I want to place this response, and indeed the whole of our deployment to Helmand and Afghanistan as a whole, in its proper context. "On 11 September 2001, a devastating terrorist attack was launched against the West from within Afghanistan's borders. This happened at least in part because we abandoned Afghanistan to become a failed state after the Soviet occupation. And this is why it remains overwhelmingly in our national interest to ensure Afghanistan does not revert to a haven for terrorists. It is also in the interests of the Afghan people, the vast majority of whom have no sympathy for terrorism or violent extremism. There are many malign influences holding the Afghans back and we need to fight them, but we should be under no illusion about what is required to succeed. Only by rebuilding Afghanistan, by strengthening its Government, its security forces and its legal system, and by tackling its desperate poverty, will we be able to help Afghanistan make real and lasting progress. I have heard all sides of the House agree that we should help. The UN agrees. NATO agrees. Thirty-six countries are providing troops to seal their agreement. We all agree. Everything we do and say should reflect this consensus. "It is also important to recognise where our efforts in Helmand stand in relation to the strategy for Afghanistan as a whole. NATO has been in charge of this mission for three years. It has helped generate the confidence for millions of refugees to return, and improved access to better medicine and education. It has followed a clear plan to expand security and reconstruction, from the north, to the west, and now to the more challenging south. We have been engaged in that process throughout, having until recently provided a provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif in the north. The southis more challenging, but this was always well understood—which is why NATO sought a firm platform of progress in the north and west first. "Let me turn specifically to Helmand. We began deploying to Helmand in February, building up to full operating capability on 1 July. It has been said that we have been over-optimistic about that deployment, that we told the House this would not be difficult and that we sent the wrong force. None of this is true. We said from the start that this was going to be a challenging mission. My predecessor's Statement to this House on 26 January included a sober assessment of the threat. The force package reflected this. It was designed by the military and endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff. It contained attack helicopters, artillery and armoured vehicles. We deployed tough, capable units, with robust rules of engagement, because we expected violent resistance."We knew that the Taliban, the drugs lords and certain tribal elements would resist any attempt to bring security to the people of Helmand. We knew that the kind of people who behead teachers, burn schools, smuggle drugs and assassinate government officials were not likely to stand by and allow progress to happen. Yes, we have taken casualties, but we have overmatched the opposing forces every single time we have faced them. They have tried to block our deployment, and failed. They will continue to try to disrupt our mission—and they will fail again. "Let me turn now to that mission. Some say it is confused and that it is spurious to say that this is about reconstruction, when the reality for soldiers has been fighting. We always knew that there was a probability of violent resistance. That is why we sent soldiers to do this task. But that does not change our over-riding purpose—which is to rebuild. "We have been accused of naïvety by drawing a distinction between the ISAF mission to spread security and the US-led mission focused on counter-terrorism. But this distinction is not naïve at all. In both cases, soldiers will have to fight, but the nature of the ISAF mission reflects the fundamental fact that we will not reach a lasting peace simply by killing all who oppose us. We will reach it when Afghanistan has changed; when the Government have been able to deliver such security, development and prosperity that the ordinary Afghans will no longer tolerate terrorists and criminals in their midst. This is why rebuilding is our mission. Our forces on the ground understand this. The Afghans understand this. The mission is simple—it is the delivery that is complex."That complexity arises from the situation. Three decades of conflict have stripped the south of all signs of governance and robbed many Afghans of hope. And in that uncontrolled space, violence, criminality, narcotics and extremism have flourished. We have confronted these threats and learnt much about them since we deployed. As with any deployment, these experiences have allowed us to review our forces and our approach. That is what we have been doing in recent weeks. Let me explain why we need to adjust and strengthen our force structure in Helmand. "The original intent was to tackle the challenges incrementally, spreading security and reconstruction from the centre of Helmand out. But commanders on the ground grasped an early opportunity. They saw the chance to reinforce the position of the local governor, the Afghan Army and police by going into northern Helmand and challenging the impunity of the Taliban there. In doing this, we moved faster towards achieving our ultimate objectives, but we extended ourselves. This is a development we must respond to. But our actions have brought about this development—our decisions and our determination to grasp the challenge. It is not, as some suggest, a failure to anticipate a violent response to our arrival. Yes, the violence has increased, but that was inevitable. We are challenging the power of the Taliban and other enemies of the Afghan Government, and they are reacting. But despite their efforts, we are spreading security."Our commanders have asked for additional forces to secure these early advances in the more remote communities in the north, while also being able to make progress in central Helmand. Last Monday, I said I was aware of ongoing work on additional resources. I was also aware that as part of this process, the chiefs of staff were going back to operational commanders and urging them to ensure they had asked for everything they needed. This iterative process produced a recommendation which I received on Thursday, as I said in the House on that day. I and the chiefs of staff have considered this recommendation and I have now endorsed it. I am grateful for the support and assistance of other departments, especially the Treasury, in working through the necessary detail of this process as quickly as possible."Let me outline the key elements of this additional force. To accelerate the reconstruction effort in the current security environment, we will deploy 320 engineers from the Royal Engineers, 28 Engineer Regiment, to start projects to improve local infrastructure. A company from 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines will provide force protection for them. These deployments will take place in September. We will deploy an additional infantry company, drawn from the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, to provide more mobile forces, and two platoons, from the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment, to provide additional force protection. There will be small increases in headquarters staff. We will also boost our medical and logistical support to reflect the increase in troop numbers."We will step up our efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan National Army. These brave soldiers have fought side by side with us in recent months and are the key to our eventual exit strategy. We are therefore deploying additional staff in Helmand, and to the regional Army headquarters for the south. Great strides have been made already in this essential task and, following the forthright discussions I had with Afghan Defence Minister Wardak, additional Afghan troops have been sent to Helmand. More will follow. There are also around 2,300 Afghan police and military in Helmand, building to 4,800 or so in 2007. "As with previous deployments, there will be a requirement to deploy reservists. There are some 150 reservists serving in the joint operational area, including members of the sponsored reserves. Some 450 call-out notices will be served on individual reservists to fill approximately 400 posts in theatre. One of the main reasons for the increase in reservist numbers is the planned deployment of100 reservist personnel from 212 Field Hospital. "These enhancements—some 870 personnel—will place additional demands on our air transport. We have already increased the flying hours available for attack and support helicopters, as requested by commanders. Today I can say that we will also be making more support helicopters and one additional Hercules C-130 available. We also plan to deploy a radar installation, provided by No 1 Air Control Centre, Royal Air Force."All these additional deployments will be made as soon as possible. But I also want to cover the planned changes to the force structure resulting from the roulement in October, when the units currently comprising the Helmand task force, drawn predominantly, but not solely, from 16 Air Assault Brigade, will complete their tours. They will be replaced by units drawn principally from3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, including 42 and 45 Commando, and other supporting elements including 12 Signal Regiment. "This roulement will also involve a change to the force structure, reflecting the differences in the two brigades' structures and equipment, including the requirement to support the Commandos' Viking armoured vehicles. This represents around an additional 125 personnel. "The House will also be aware that last month I announced the deployment of 130 personnel from 34 Squadron of the Royal Air Force to increase force protection at Kandahar airfield. "This is a complex picture. Some troops will be going immediately, others in October; some will constitute an enduring addition, others are being deployed on a surge basis. But as a result of today's announcement, the steady-state size of the Helmand task force will increase between now and October from some 3,600 to some 4,500 personnel."I am aware that our Armed Forces are heavily committed. As I said in the personnel debate, around 18 per cent of the Army is currently deployed on operations. This is challenging, but sustainable. Taking into account deployments in Iraq and the planned increase in personnel to Afghanistan, most of our deployable units will operate outside harmony guidelines. I do not accept this lightly, but I do believe it is necessary, and judging by comments made in this House in recent months, so do the majority of honourable Members. We will do all we can to minimise the impact of this, and we will continue to seek further contributions from our NATO partners to relieve the pressure in some of these areas. "Some commentators have suggested that there are insufficient infantry soldiers deployed in comparison to the force's overall size. Let me be clear that the delivery of this mission is not borne by the infantry alone, and it does a disservice to a great many brave men and women to suggest otherwise. Of the six deaths in Afghanistan since the deployment, half have been from other arms. The infantry do have a challenging task, but so do all our forces in Afghanistan. Airpower, artillery, light armour and others are involved in combat. But the work done by the provincial reconstruction team, the training teams, and those who enable the others to operate is every bit as essential to eventual success. Some more infantry are indeed deploying, but the fundamental balance of combat forces to others carrying out vital roles will not change. This is because the mission has not changed."There have been questions raised about the capability of NATO, and of the intentions of the US. NATO now has many more troops, to reflect the greater challenge in the south. Rules of engagement have been made more robust. This morning I spoke to Commander ISAF, General David Richards. He told me that in the south there were effectively no caveats placed by nations on the use of their forces. Across Afghanistan he was seeing a "new NATO" where such caveats were becoming a thing of the past. He also said he was confident he had the forces to do the job, and that he had been encouraged to see nations suchas Germany and Spain considering making additional forces available."I believe that NATO is thoroughly fit for this role. It has been suggested that because it does not have forces in every province, it cannot succeed. But this misses the fundamental point that we are in a stage when NATO is expanding in Afghanistan. Months ago, there were no NATO troops in the south at all, and few US troops. Soon there will be nearly 9,000 in the south, part of a total of around 18,500. NATO is building on a success that many seem determined to ignore."As for the US, last week I spoke to General John Abizaid, the US commander responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq. He was absolutely clear about the US commitment to Afghanistan. The US is not leaving this to NATO. It is part of NATO and is likely to be the biggest force contributor in Afghanistan for some time to come. Accusations that it is abandoning NATO are misplaced."Lastly, I want to address counter narcotics. I said that stability was the key to Afghanistan's future. Part of that stability must be delivered by the Afghan Government facing up to the evil of narcotics. President Karzai's personal commitment to this has been clear, and we must help. Again, the aim is simple, even if the implementation is difficult, and it is the same aim as for all other aspects of our task—to rebuild. We will make a lasting impact on the narcotics industry only by strengthening all aspects of Afghan life, so the economy can function without drugs money and farmers have alternative livelihoods to turn to. This will take time but the process must start now. "Our soldiers are not narcotics police and we do not ask them to be. They are not waging a narcotics war; they will not destroy poppy fields and fight farmers for bags of opium—they are helping to create the conditions of security and development in which the narcotics industry will be weakened and eventually driven out by the Afghans themselves."I trust that I have made my position clear. My decisions on these matters have been shaped by what I saw and heard when visiting Afghanistan. Our people there are doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. They know why they are there. They recognise the importance of their task. They have achieved a great deal already and I intend to give them what they need to secure these achievements and help the Afghans towards the stable future they deserve".My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am not satisfied that more could not be done to improve recruitment. That is an area in which we are very active. The noble Lord may be aware of the recent one-army advertising campaign, which has been very effective. The Army, as part of the Armed Forces, is seeing an improvement in recruitment in response to campaigns, which in turn are a response to the challenges that we face. However, despite the challenges which I have set out, we can cope with the situation. While recognising the very real efforts that need to be made to ensure that we meet out commitments and those challenges, it is important that we do not conflate those with our operational tasks. I am concerned that the media are doing that. We need to separate the two. We need to ensure that we modernise and reform our Armed Forces to meet the challenges that they face in the 21st century while being absolutely clear that in both Iraq and Afghanistan we will provide our forces with what they need to win.

Viscount Eccles: I, too, am puzzled and confused, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was the other day. I was very interested in the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I think that the confusion arises from the Government because, on the one hand, they say that they want to pursue better regulation. At one time that might have been "deregulation", but that is a dangerous description and so they have shifted towards "better regulation". On the other hand, they say that they have not been able to do that with the 2001 Act and nor could other governments do it with the 1994 Act. Then the Government say that they have opened a portal. We have heard about that several times. I think that it is run by the Better Regulation Executive, although I am not sure. It has made 330 proposals for deregulation, simplification, amendment and removal. These have included administrative recommendations as well as recommendations which I believe will almost exclusively concern secondary and not primary legislation.
	This is where the confusion comes in. We find ourselves talking as though it will be impossible to follow the Government's programme if either the 2001 Act is not amended or this Bill is not enacted. I sincerely believe, and I am sure the Minister will put me right if I am wrong, that it will be possible to put in place by existing legislation a large percentage of any deregulatory, simplification or amendment programme—the departmental plans to which the noble Lord referred. The 1994 and 2001 Acts did not do much to achieve a reduction in the regulatory burden and nor will this Bill.
	It is probably a pity that we have chosen the word "burden" because, as has been pointed out, a burden works both ways. To give one example, there used to be a simplified employer's deduction card and a year-end return, which involved putting in one form. You now have two submit three forms, which contain a great deal of information, including whether your employee worked for a foreign company for 30 days in the year. That is completely irrelevant to complying with the Revenue's intentions. There are many other examples which come from administration and secondary legislation. Unless and until the Minister can clarify how much primary legislation the Government need to amend to achieve the deregulatory regime to which he referred and how much they can achieve with existing legislation, the confusion will remain.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: We understand the thrust of where the noble Lord is coming from with this amendment. I hope, as my first task in this Bill, I can persuade him that his approach is flawed and that what is already in process effectively meets what he seeks to achieve.
	He is effectively saying that regulations which the Government are unable to measure in terms of time and cost should either be removed or reduced. That position seems to have no regard to possible evidence of the benefits of introducing the regulation. If we accepted that, the noble Lord could find that important protections for consumers and other groups could be removed. That is why the Government require regulatory impact assessment for new regulations, including consideration of non-regulatory options. All regulatory proposals must be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment, and major proposals are scrutinised and require approval by the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. The purpose of RIAs and PRA scrutiny is to ensure that the costs and consequences of regulatory proposals are reasonable and proportionate to the benefits. Exemptions for any group or sector, including small businesses, are considered on a case-by-case basis, with Ministers making their decision transparent through the RIA/PRA process.
	One of the key principles of better regulation is light-touch implementation of policy proposals. The amendment runs counter to that principle, adding an unnecessary and bureaucratic step to the policy-making process. RIAs already consider the impact of any regulation on small and medium-sized enterprises and are subject to scrutiny by officials within the Better Regulation Executive. The BRE is currently developing proposals to improve the effectiveness of RIAs. The aims will be both to improve the clarity with which costs and benefits are presented and to streamline the RIA requirements, making them easier to use throughout the policy development and implementation cycle—the point that the noble Lord was particularly pressing. The BRE intends to consult on its proposals shortly.
	On the cost of business, charities and voluntary organisation complying with existing regulations, no UK Government have understood what the estimates of the administrative costs are until now, as my noble friend has just outlined. As part of one of the most ambitious regulatory reform agendas in the world, the Government have faced up to the challenge of identifying and measuring the total administrative costs placed on businesses, charities and voluntary organisations by existing government regulation.
	Noble Lords have just heard that each department will publish detailed information later this year on both the administrative costs of complying with government regulation, and their plans for reducing these costs and other regulatory burdens. The Government will set stretching but achievable targets for reducing each department's administrative costs over time. To put such an amendment in the Bill would be too prescriptive, giving no regard to important protection the regulation may exist to provide. It would not take account of what the Government are already delivering on measurement of administrative costs on the regulated, an approach wholeheartedly supported by the business community:
	"We are encouraged that the effort to plan and then implement reductions in administrative burdens is already underway, through a nationwide survey to establish how much time and money businesses must expend to demonstrate compliance, and to identify which regulations impose the greatest burdens".
	Those are not my words, but those of key representatives of business in a letter to the Government earlier this year.
	While it seems a sensible amendment on a prima facie basis, it would cause uncertainty within the regulatory environment. This Government have for the first time completed an exercise to identify and measure the administrative costs of government regulations on business, charities and voluntary organisations. We will set meaningful targets for reducing those costs, and recognise that everything on the statute book, whether originating from this or other administrative legislative output, has been measured in terms of time and cost. Each government department has identified its existing stock of regulations through the administrative burdens reductions exercise, evidence that will indicate where the costs are, so that they can then take action to reduce them.
	In summary, I welcome the noble Lord's intent with this amendment, but do not agree that it is an effective way of achieving the right outcome. I invite him to withdraw it.

Baroness Wilcox: Small businesses are vital to the UK economy. There are about 3.8 million in the UK, of which 1.6 million are sole traders. They account for 99 per cent of UK firms, generate more than half the total UK turnover and employ 56 per cent of the private sector workforce. Regulations can have a disproportionately large impact on small businesses because they usually do not employ a regulatory specialist and the costs of, for example, employment regulation are absorbed across fewer employees.
	The National Audit Office report goes on to say that,
	"Departments must therefore pay particular attention to the potential impact of their proposed regulations on small businesses".
	The amendment seeks to put this recommendation in statutory form. When using this order-making power to reduce burdens, a Minister should always consider the appropriateness of whether a small firm exemption should apply. In this way, the order-making power, if used to reduce regulations, would serve as a trigger to initiate a small firm exemption. If the Minister chooses not to take advantage of the opportunity to exempt small firms, then he must account to Parliament with his reasons for not doing so.
	As far as I am aware, when preparing its regulatory impact assessments, current practice is for the relevant department to consult the small business section of the DTI, to get its agreement on its impact assessment on small businesses. The National Audit Office report of March 2005, on page 21, said that, in four cases out of eight in the sample, the small business section had not been given enough time to produce a considered response. Can Minister confirm whether this unsatisfactory state of affairs has been rectified?
	The report went on to cite an example of where small businesses have not been properly considered. The Department of Health seemed to have been a major offender:
	"The SBS told us that the Department of Health did not enter into negotiation and asked the SBS not to provide comments for the RIA for the National Care Standards Commission Fees and Frequencies of Inspection 2003-04".
	It cited the example of the regulations regarding the recovery of NHS treatment costs. The Department of Health identified that one of the effects of this regulation would be an increase in insurance premiums. According to the National Audit Office, the department made no attempt while preparing the RIA to calculate the increase in premium for an average small business or to assess whether it will be disproportionately affected.
	So, there we have it—clear evidence from an independent source that small businesses can and will get overlooked. We need to take the opportunity that this Bill presents to put something in concrete that will reassure the small business community that they will not get overlooked. I beg to move.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: While the tabling of this new clause indicates that the Opposition are as eager as we are to help small businesses, the amendment is not required therefore the Government cannot support it.
	One of the main policy objectives at the heart of this Bill is that orders made under the power in Clause 1 will help to reduce regulatory burdens, including burdens on small businesses. The proposed new clause is therefore unnecessary. All regulatory proposals must be accompanied by a RIA, and major proposals are scrutinised and require approval by the Panel for Regulatory Accountability (PRA).
	The purpose of RIAs and PRA scrutiny is to ensure that the costs and consequences of regulatory proposals are reasonable and proportionate to the benefits. Exemptions for any group or sector are considered on a case-by-case basis, with Ministers making transparent their decision through the RIA/PRA process, as we have just discussed.
	One of the key principles of better regulation is light-touch implementation of policy proposals. This amendment runs counter to that principle, as did the previous one. RIAs already consider the impact of any regulation on small and medium enterprises and are subject to scrutiny by officials within the Better Regulation Executive. The chair of the Small Business Council, Julie Kenny, is invited to attend meetings of the PRA. That seeks to ensure that small businesses have a voice on the committee and that the regulatory proposals scrutinised take full account of the impact on small businesses.
	The Government are already reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses. For example, we are exempting nearly 900,000 companies from audit requirements on their accounts as a result of raising the annual turnover threshold from £1 million to£5.6 million, saving companies at least £94 million a year. We have introduced regulation updates: a one-page "see at a glance" look at new regulations which enable an SME to decide whether a new regulation will affect it, without having to wade through a lengthy document, saving time and money. We have introduced a 12-week minimum implementation period for new regulation, giving implementation guidelines to SMEs, to enable them to prepare for new regulation at least three months before it is due to come into effect.
	The DTI simplification plan alone identifies how it will reduce the burdens on businesses by more than £1 billion over the lifetime of its five-year programme.
	The Company Law Reform Bill, the heart of which is deregulation, will deliver savings to businesses of some £250 million a year. That includes an estimated annual saving of £100 million for small businesses.
	The requirement in the Bill for consultation on any proposed order will also allow those affected by any proposals to have an opportunity to put their case to the Government. The Government will take these views into account before a draft order and explanatory document are laid before Parliament. The explanatory document must give details of the consultation, representations received and any changes made as a result of those representations. Those representations from small and medium enterprises, as with other representations, will of course be reflected in this explanatory document. There is a clear overlap between what this amendment would require and what is already required by the Bill in the explanatory document.
	This Bill is about reducing and removing unnecessary burdens, not increasing them, and will make the procedure more onerous, diverting valuable resources away from actually delivering the necessary reductions in red tape that businesses, the public and the voluntary sector are crying out for.
	Small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy—we share a view on that. There are a record number of small businesses, nearly twice as many as there were a generation ago. This Government champion small businesses. We recognise their huge importance to the UK economy. My statistics state that 58 per cent of the UK's private sector workforce is made up of small enterprises; and small business, as has been recognised, accounts for over half of the UK's turnover—some £1,200 billion.
	The Bill has widespread support, including from the Federation of Small Businesses and the Small Business Council. It is difficult to see how the proposed new clause would add anything to the mechanisms this Government have already put in place to support small businesses. Small business, as defined, is in danger of putting a straitjacket on the approach which the Government would take on this, because the definition of "small or medium-sized enterprise" may differ according to the requirement of the particular regulation. A Companies Act definition may be appropriate if one is considering exemption from audit or from some other more detailed requirement of financial reporting. It is not necessarily always the key test for other requirements. To put such a straitjacket in the Bill is unhelpful. On the basis of the evidence provided, I therefore urge the noble Baroness opposite to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am very proud to address your Lordships' House tonight as the product of a grammar school education. I went to the Wallace High School, which is very much part of the community in Lisburn, County Antrim. That school takes boys and girls from every walk of life, and gives them a huge range of opportunities. It is certainly not a case of money or resources. It is about an educational ethos. There is a fundamental belief among the teachers that every pupil is capable of achieving his or her best. Many pupils went on to the Queen's University, Belfast, and other highly regarded universities in Great Britain and Dublin. Many of us were the first in our families to go to university. We owed that opportunity to the schools which helped us to fulfil our potential. That is the secret of success of good schools, and so often it is grammar schools which have lead the way.
	In Northern Ireland, grammar schools represent an enduring excellence in our state education system. By every measure, Northern Ireland grammar schools out perform all other schools in the Kingdom—maintained, specialist, fee-paying or academy. Pupils at grammar schools achieve better GCSE and A-level results, and provide more added value, to use current education jargon. Northern Ireland's grammar schools are truly vehicles for social mobility. The fact that I am standing here tonight and addressing this House is proof of that.
	When Labour—hardly traditionally supportive of grammar schools—were elected in 1997, they chose in England a totally different approach from that which they are now pursuing in Northern Ireland. They put in place legislation that would allow parents to hold ballots on the future of grammar schools in their area. A few campaigns were started. None has succeeded. Some would argue that the cost of such campaigns could have been used to better educational purposes. But it seems intuitively correct that regions or communities should decide what is best for their children. That is truly local democracy.
	Grammar schools in Northern Ireland, unlike in England, educate almost half of the children in the Province, yet the Government are committed to making it unlawful to select pupils on the grounds of academic ability. No matter that the public in Northern Ireland want to keep their grammar schools or that standards will fall. What is their crime? It is to be delivering the excellence in education and the sort of superb schooling that every parent wants for their children.
	I believe that the future of our education system lies in the need to remove as far as humanly possible the baleful influence of politicians. Politicians, driven by ideology alone, should not be allowed to wipe away an entire school structure. Schools should succeed or fail on one basis alone—the quality of the education that they provide to our children.
	Following the publication of the Burns report into post-primary education in Northern Ireland in October 2001, the then Minister of Education in the devolved Administration at Stormont, Martin McGuinness, set in train a very involved consultation process on its recommendations. When just over half the responses had been returned to the department, he declared:
	"I have 100,000 responses sitting in my Department and those are the people that count".
	The results were published in October 2002. The responses from some quarter of a million Northern Ireland households—which equate, proportionately speaking, to responses from some 5 million households in England—included those from 162,000 parents and 21,000 teachers. It showed that 57 per cent of households, 58 per cent of parents and 64 per cent of teachers were in favour of abolishing the divisive 11-plus, yet 64 per cent of households, 63 per cent of parents and 62 per cent of teachers favoured the retention of some form of academic selection. Opinion on these issues was seen to cross both the class and religious divides. An independent "omnibus survey" of a random sample of the population, which was taken at the same time, confirmed those results. Moreover, the BBC survey in January 2004 and the Belfast Telegraph survey in September 2005, again with random samples, indicate remarkably consistent support for academic selection.
	In December 2005, Ms Angela Smith, the then Minister with responsibility for education, published the draft order and simultaneously released the results of a consultation on admissions arrangements which was completed six months ago. While the figures do not appear in the document, the Minister admitted that at least 90 per cent of the responses to the consultation supported academic selection. The Government therefore have deliberately chosen to ignore the outcome of every public consultation and test of opinion on the issue over a period of more than three years and instead seeks to impose a policy against the will of the people.
	At no time have the people of Northern Ireland had an opportunity to influence the pattern of education reform through their elected representatives. A majority of locally elected politicians oppose this order, which would not pass if our local Assembly were functioning. There are obviously different perspectives on why the Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning, but it is safe to say that it would be inconceivable for a Government, having promised the people their say, to impose such huge changes in any other part of the United Kingdom against the will of the people and a majority of elected representatives in that area.
	In England, the issue is handled with great sensitivity, as highlighted by a statement by the Department for Education and Skills. It states:
	"Where selection exists, the government believes in local decision-making as to whether it should continue and has put in place mechanisms to allow this to happen".
	I simply say to noble Lords that the Government have no argument on why they have accorded this right to the people of England while denying it to the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore ask for your support on this amendment. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 until the people of Northern Ireland have been given the opportunity to approve the proposals contained therein in a manner analogous to the procedures followed in regard to similar proposed changes in England".—(Lord Rogan.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. First, I thank the Minister for laying the Government's case before us in his customary manner—very clear and very precise. For once, on Northern Ireland business, there are many things in the Minister's opening statement with which I do not agree. It is rare that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I disagree over fundamental matters concerning Northern Ireland. My main dissent concerns admissions and academic selection. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has made clear, this issue has been around a long time. I believe, and I am cynical enough to think, that we are debating it in this manner today, with a possible Division ahead, only because the right honourable Peter Hain, the Secretary of State, has said that he wants this as a tool for negotiation to force the parties together or else to hand a present to the last Minister of Education in the Stormont Assembly.
	During the progress of the Education and Inspections Bill, the Government have rightly declared and defended a commitment to supporting high standards in schools. We fully support them in this and hope that they will see it through to the end. They have already seen off an attempt from their Back Benches to abolish all academic selection by 2009, and instead, as has already been said, are giving parents the choice, through a ballot, over whether their school remains selective or not.
	That is the right way to do it: to focus on the achievements of each individual school and its relationship with the community it serves. Why then are they not pursuing the same well-judged policy in Northern Ireland? This order will abolish academic selection forcibly, and yet it is being promoted by the same Government who voted against the Back Bench amendment—their own Back Bench amendment—I mentioned earlier in the Education and Inspections Bill. Although it has been heartening to see the Government rise above old political knee-jerk ideology in the education Bill, it is the more discouraging to see them return to the same discredited theories when they legislate for Northern Ireland.
	Why is this the case? The same arguments work equally well, if not better, when related to Northern Ireland. The schools system in Northern Ireland has shown itself more than capable of producing not just equal results to England and Wales, but better. In 2003-04 some 60 per cent of all pupils in Northern Ireland achieved five or more GCSEs at grade C or above. The system is clearly capable of maintaining those educational high standards. In another place, the Government explained that they are worried not only about allowing capable students to excel themselves, but are also concerned to ensure that no child is allowed to drop out of the system in the pursuit of higher grades for others. This is something that must always be guarded against, and yet the figures show that here again the Northern Irish system is better at doing this than that of England and Wales. Some 3 per cent of Northern Irish children fail to get any GCSEs above grade C, and while that is of course still too high, it is better than the 4 per cent in England and the worrying 7 per cent in Wales.
	The existing system in Northern Ireland does not fail children, either in providing a good education for as many as possible or in allowing students to achieve a high standard. Why are we risking the system with summary execution? If the Government are really concerned about the 3 per cent of children who fail to get any GCSEs above grade C, would they not be better off looking at the continuing culture of organised crime and paramilitarism in the poorest areas of Northern Ireland than attacking a system that has served Northern Irish communities well despite incredible odds? It is both counterproductive and hypocritical.
	We know that for years children in many families in Northern Ireland have been deprived of a proper and fair education, and those standards have been poor with a high rate of illiteracy, especially in the Shankill Road. But those of us who have been there—and I have accompanied the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, and others in the past to see the schools on the so-called Peace Line—have seen the appalling challenge parents face in trying to get their children to school at all, let alone that of teachers trying to teach the children. For more than 20 to 30 years they did not know whether a bomb was going to come through the window. That is why there is a divide in the standard of education in Northern Ireland. That is why so many children in the poorer areas have not had a chance to receive a fine education. We tried very hard to put a part of the University of Ulster in Springvale at the back of the Shankill, and I backed that proposal hard with the millennium group and others. The Government refused it: not enough money.
	It is not just the contents of this order that Members on these Benches oppose, it is the very nature of how it is being imposed. The Government's summary of responses to the consultation of this order lists those who support the prohibition on academic selection. But hidden away near the end, they are forced to admit that it was opposed by the majority of the public. Public feeling towards academic selection has been the subject of so many consultations and reviews that it is extraordinary that the Government still seem to be in doubt about it. The Household Response consultation in 2002 showed that 64 per cent of the public support academic selection, more than twice the number who oppose it. We have already heard about a poll by the Belfast Telegraph last year which showed that two-thirds of the public support academic selection, and yet another poll taken in February this year showed over 90 per cent support for it.
	To go ahead with something which is clearly so unwelcome and so sensitive in an undemocratic way to a large, if not a majority, swathe of those who will have to suffer the consequences is arrogant in the extreme. The Government showed clearly their commitment to being a "listening Government" when the then Education Minister, Angela Smith, was reported in the Belfast Telegraph as dismissing the consultation response with the words, "not a referendum". It appears that the Government have no interest in listening to the public unless they say the right thing. One might wonder why on earth they bothered having the consultations at all.
	As a nod to the concept of democracy, the Government have conceded a proviso that the power to ban academic selection in the order will not come into force if the devolved institutions are restored on 24 November. That is something we fought for in this House and argued with the Government in the corridors. But they think that they are turning it to their own benefit: they are going to use is as a sledgehammer to hit the unionists with in order to force them back into government with Sinn Fein. But if that does not happen, the ban will automatically come in the day after. Continuing with the ban after conceding this proviso is extraordinary. The Government are simply engaged in a crude exercise to blackmail unionists into a power-sharing government. "Form a government with Sinn Fein by 24 November", they say, "or the ban on academic selection comes into force the day after". They should know by now that the people of Ulster do not yield to bullying.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I support the order and oppose the amendment proposed bythe noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for setting out the proposals in this order. It is a very difficult issue and I know that views are sincerely held. But there are two desires: one is to make certain that there is no selection in secondary education. It is a desire of the Government and that of Members on these Benches. The second desire is to have devolved decision-making. Given that there are 20 minutes left for debate, I have to say that this is not the way to discuss the merits of comprehensive education and the whole business of secondary education provision in Northern Ireland. There has to be a better way of dealing with major issues like this.
	It should be dealt with in Stormont, of course. The new Stormont government was set up by the Good Friday agreement in 1998 and supported by a referendum on 23 May, which is now more than eight years ago. Considerable efforts have been made to get it up and running by 24 November, but if that date sees no success, during the eight-and-a-half years since the agreement the Assembly will have functioned properly for only two-and-a-half years. Devolution would give Northern Ireland the opportunity to create successes or, in my view, to make mistakes. But we are without devolution at the present time and the issue is whether difficult or controversial decisions be made now.
	The order delivers a neat way of going forward. On the one hand would be the ending of the 11-plus. It appears that the test in itself has few friends. One suggestion is to bring in a child-friendly form of selection, which perhaps is not that controversial, but the major element is ending selection unless it is stopped by a new Stormont Assembly. I have been opposed to selective schools all my life and happily it is Liberal Democrat policy, but if the Assembly is restored, that is the opportunity and challenge of devolution.
	Who is in favour of selection? The people in favour of it are those closely associated with grammar schools and two of the political parties, the UUP and the DUP. As always, no one is shouting the odds for the preservation of secondary modern schools—we have not had that for the past 30 or 40 years in England. Who is supporting the comprehensive schools? It appears to be many of the educational professionals, many of the unions and many of the political groups—Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the PUP Alliance. What is proposed is a unionist solution because comprehensive education is the norm in England, Scotland and Wales. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, refers only to the change in the rump of grammar schools that are left in England, not to the totality of schools.
	If devolution is re-established, it will be a major success. If that happens and the comprehensive education argument fails, many staunch supporters of educational change will need to campaign, and I wish them well if that happens. If devolution is not re-established, selection will cease, but, sadly, devolution could be years and years away.
	We have been invited to talk about our personal experience; mine is quite strange. I attended a primary school in Yorkshire and sat the 11-plus in February 1953. I can even remember some of the questions. In April 1953, the whole of my intake was sent off to the secondary modern school because we were to be replaced by four or five year-olds. When we got to the secondary modern school, the staff did not know what to do with us—they had not had a group of primary school pupils in their final year—so they called us "remove". In May 1953, I was stood in the assembly hall when the results were announced by the head teacher of that school—the headmaster we called him in those days—and he read out the names. Happily mine was one of them, but I saw in that place the reaction to the change that was going to affect lives. I went from that assembly into a class and the woman who was teaching that class said, "I've listened to what the head said in the hall and anyone who is any good is going". What a thing to say to those young children. Now whether or not that should have been said, that is what happens when you have selection. My Lords, support the order.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I oppose the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rogan but not because I do not understand my noble friend's intention in moving it. It would great if this issue could be left to our own Northern Ireland Assembly, and I speak as one who truly believes in the Assembly. Indeed, during the referendum I actively campaigned for a yes vote. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who is in his place, for his courage and foresight in the work that he and his party did at that time.
	But, in opposing the amendment, my fear is that the education question could be set back for a very long time. Some of the information that has been sent out opposing the education order states that cross-community support would not be given. Meanwhile, the education of children and young people in Northern Ireland is simply put on the back burner—for how long, no one knows. I ask your Lordships to oppose the amendment.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, I start by declaring two interests: first, I am the proud product of a Northern Ireland grammar school; secondly, and perhaps more relevantly, I was the Minister who brought the last major education reform order for Northern Ireland to the House when the Minister and I were Members of another place. He will recall that that education order protected the grammar schools and established the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. The Catholic bishops, who were as concerned as I was about standards in some of the maintained schools in the Catholic tradition, wanted stronger powers to raise standards in those schools, and Parliament gave them those powers.
	The order introduced a new curriculum and a cross-community aspect to that curriculum. I was interested in what the Minister said about flexibility. What he actually meant was that the focus of that new curriculum is to be diluted. That is not in the educational interests of Northern Ireland's children. The order also set up new curriculum and examination authorities precisely to drive ahead the quality of education for all the children of Northern Ireland and, if I may be permitted a personal comment, it also included the one piece of legislation of which, in 11&frac12; years as a Minister, I am most proud: it put the option of integrated education on the statute book. There was one integrated school in Northern Ireland when that order was brought forward; today there are 50 or so, going on 60. That is a consequence of the far-sighted decision making of this House. I remind the Minister that his party voted against that reform order.
	The Minister has referred to entitlement in the context of it being a whole new exciting dimension, where schools in Northern Ireland, by implication, for the first time will be able to work together, to collaborate together and, on the wonderful horizon, to collaborate with further education colleges. The Minister does not appear to be aware that that has been going on in Northern Ireland for years and years—and it does not need an education reform order today to put it in place.
	However, I take some comfort from the fact that in the 1970s, the previous Labour Government also decided to abolish grammar schools and put comprehensive education in place. When we took office in 1979, there had been no delivery. It seems to be a constant theme of Labour Governments. I hope that history will repeat itself.
	The Minister said something that I would not have been surprised to hear from his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But I would have expected better of the Minister; he knows that I hold him in high regard, and have done so for many years. He said—and I quote him as accurately as my memory will permit—that if education was the most important thing in Northern Ireland, devolution would be back in place by the middle of November.
	I was one of only two Ministers who served in Northern Ireland for more than six years, and I bore the brunt of the attempts by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum to kill me and my colleagues and to disrupt democratic government. This Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—implied that if education is the most important thing, devolution will be back in place. He and I know, and the House knows, that security, democratic government and accountability are all more important to all the people of Northern Ireland than is education. As a former Education Minister in Northern Ireland and a product of the system—I am a graduate of the primary university in Northern Ireland—I think I can speak with some authority, having borne the brunt and been the first Minister who started the peace process in the Province.
	Incidentally, speaking of the peace process, the Government keep on using the Good Friday agreement as a reason for introducing policy. I remind the Minister that this piece of legislation would fail to meet the terms of the Good Friday agreement because the agreement requires that on contentious issues—which this is—there must be overwhelming support from both sides of the community. This legislation fails to meet the terms of the Good Friday agreement. It is educational dumbing down, if not something worse. I am sorry that the Government are using intimidatory tactics. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, on his speech and I, for one, will support the amendment.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have been at Westminster for the past 23 years, and here I have sought to uphold democracy. For 23 years before that I was a school teacher—I was a school principal for 16 of those years. This Order in Council is the negation of 46 years of my life and the destruction of the very principles of democracy that we in this House have been charged to defend.
	I have the greatest respect for the Minister; it gives me no pleasure to say that he is no longer in Northern Ireland. I have sympathy with him in so far as he has been briefed to present his case based on one wrong premise after another. Bluntly, his case is wrong; if the premise is wrong, the argument is wrong and the conclusion is inevitably wrong.
	The Government have allotted us 60 minutes in which to dismantle and destroy an educational tradition that has been a bulwark against poverty and ignorance and withstood the ravages of more than30 years of terrorism. That happened despite a parents' petition that was, on Thursday last, presented in another place by Kate Hoey MP; despite a pupils' petition—I have it in my hand—with several thousand signatures from an active group Pupils for Choice; and despite a public opinion poll on this order in the Belfast Telegraph where 90 per cent voted against. Is this rea1ly democracy at work? Are we going to sanction such educational vandalism that flies in direct opposition to parents representing the present, to pupils who signal the future and the experience of people such as Kate Hoey and me who have been past beneficiaries?
	Do a Government who fail to consult, carry out any infrastructural audit or produce costings have any right to your Lordships' support? Let me quantify that. On 30 June last year, in answer to a Written Parliamentary Question, I was told:
	"It is not proposed that any such audit take place".—[Official Report, 30/06/05; col. WA 45.]
	On 30 November, I was told:
	"It is not possible to assess the associated costs at this stage, but the position will be kept under review as new arrangements are developed".—[Official Report, 30/11/06; col. WA 45.]
	On 7 March this year I was told that,
	"the Costello report, was not published for consultation".—[Official Report, 7/03/06; col. WA 119-120.]
	With planning and foresight of that calibre, is it any wonder that our troops in Afghanistan are under strength and ill equipped; that rapists and murderers are released from prison and back on to our streets and we do not know who they are or where they come from? Are we wise to trust a Government like this with our children's toys, let alone their futures?
	This is about education for generations to come, about opportunity and social mobility. How can any Government be so pitifully naïve or callously undemocratic? How could we democrats justify such perversity? We have been told that what is proposed here today is, apparently, so trivial that it can be accepted here and now on the basis of 60 minutes' debate and then repudiated on 24 November next if the Northern Ireland Assembly is, by then, up and running. No, my Lords, you are not dreaming; you are simply sharing my nightmare.
	Should children be part of a coercive tactic designed to force a devolved arrangement on Northern Ireland? That is what the Government tell us they intend. Let us forget our impatience and frustration with the Assembly. I am an eager devolutionist—I always have been—but as a teacher and a democrat I cannot ever sanction children being sacrificed in the front line. This Order in Council will inevitably militate against the poor and will deprive the neediest of opportunity and the chance to achieve. Is that the value we put on democracy?
	Democracy is ever a tender plant. As parliamentarians we must shelter it against abuse. Children are our hope for the future. They are tender plants too and it would be so wrong to allow them to be used as political pawns as this Order in Council would do. Tonight, democracy is on trial. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rogan.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I am resplendent in wearing my honoured tie from the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, known as Inst. We have four Peers in the House today, showing what a good standard of education we have. Let me say straight away that I am not an educationalist. Noble Lords have heard from other noble Lords and fellow countrymen about how difficult this education order is, and I shall not be any different in my criticism of it. Forgive me if I repeat some of the points already made.
	Interestingly enough, I am not criticising the Government for producing this order, but I am blaming them for a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly in its schools. One has to go through over 30 years of violence to realise how well the education system coped with the mayhem, murder and violence. It is remarkable that schooling continued as efficiently as it did under such aggravating circumstances. There are a few things that the Government just do not understand but, principally, government is supposed to operate by consensus, and the people of Northern Ireland do not want a change in their educational system, which has worked so well for so many years. My school was founded in 1810, and has an unblemished record of providing some of the best brains in Northern Ireland, which extended right through the 19th and 20th centuries and continues to this day. My former head boy was the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, and he is here this evening.
	We are all grateful for the wonderful education we had, which is down to the system. I am not going to get into any religious discussions, but I want to point out that the schools which are under threat in this order obtain their pupils from a complete cross-section of the community in Northern Ireland. We recently met with the heads of Belfast Royal Academy; Lumen Christi College, Derry; and the Royal School, Dungannon. They all agreed on the unfairness of the proposed order. That is something the Government should understand.
	For countless years the standard of education in Northern Ireland has been higher than that in Great Britain, and that continues to be the case. Discipline in Northern Ireland schools is much better, the teaching staff are much more compatible with the job, and a vast number of them have worked their entire professional life teaching in those schools that are now under threat. I could talk about the hundreds of letters that have been received by myself and my colleagues and about the many opinion polls that have been conducted, but my fellow Ulstermen will doubtless have made the same points in this debate.
	I can talk about the document issued in June 2006 for a proposal for a draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order, prepared by Maria Eagle MP, the Minister with responsibility for education. She says in the foreword:
	"All the responses were carefully considered".
	Thirty-nine amendments were discussed, of which two were agreed to. One was to allow Irish to be taught as a modern language and the other dealt with expulsions, both of which I support. What kind of a one-sided document is this, and what kind of a statement is it that says,
	"I took particular account of the weight of arguments"?
	That is just not correct. Very little account has been taken.
	Your Lordships are going completely against the people, the educators and the teachers of Northern Ireland. This is a case where the absence of local government shows the vacuum that exists. I will only say in the strongest possible terms that the people do not want this, the pupils do not want it and neither do we. I urge the Government to drop it. In conclusion, I am proud to have been educated in a grammar school in Northern Ireland, and I hope that in the future many pupils will be able to say the same. I support the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if I may, I will raise an issue on the order itself. This is the only opportunity one will have to do so in this debate. This issue echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, whom I commend for his introduction, when Secretary of State, of the notion of integrated education. Integrated education offers a hope and a way forward for Northern Ireland of singular, proven merit. I would be grateful if, in summing up, the Minister would make reference to Article 6 of the order, which prescribes the broad curriculum content for every grant-aided school. That includes eight areas of learning.
	I would particularly appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would look at column 1 of Part III of Schedule 1 and see there that it refers to "local citizenship" and "personal development" as being two of the areas of learning that every curriculum should deal with. If the Northern Ireland Assembly is not back in action by the end of November, and if the Government therefore exercise powers directly in terms of subsidiary regulation under this order, will he ensure that the directions then given take full account of the unique benefits and advantages that local citizenship and personal development offer? I should declare an interest as I was involved professionally as a lawyer in setting up the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education.
	Having heard the debate, I realise that if you are a poor old Englishman commenting on selection in Northern Ireland education is a bit like walking into a lion's den, but I cannot resist making some quick points. First, nobody has referred to the fact that the five teachers' unions in Northern Ireland support the measure strongly. It seems to me that that is extremely powerful evidence. Secondly, has anybody done a survey or attempted to do any research into the educational background of the men of violence in Northern Ireland? I would be amazed if there was not a correlation between violence and those who have gone to schools for those who failed the 11-plus. Thirdly, I understand the pride of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Steinberg, in the grammar schools they attended. I absolutely sympathise with somebody, particularly from a working class background, who has been lifted out of a rather dreary prospect in life by dint of going to a grammar school. That is perfectly understandable. None the less, surely one has to face the fact that those grammar schools are privileged in the most powerful way—in the ability of the pupils who attend them. I suggest that is a much more potent privilege than any financial privilege.
	Nobody has yet referred in this debate to the failures—the majority of children in Northern Ireland who do not get to a grammar school. Nobody has said a word about them, the schools they go to or the quality of those schools. However, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to that very briefly. I suggest that to ignore that majority because of the success of the minority is not good enough. How could one not expect grammar schools to be wonderful and to have better results on the basis of their selection? It is rather like an army that puts all the best soldiers into one regiment. It will fight better than the others. It is like a hospital that corralled all the best doctors—it would be better. I believe strongly that the ideal of educational egalitarianism is fundamental to a good society. I bow to the intimate knowledge of their province of noble Lords who come from Northern Ireland, but I urge them to give a thought to that. Nobody has referred to it.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to parents favouring some form of selection. I believe that I have quoted him correctly. I favour some form of selection. I went to a state primary, passed the 11-plus and was then sent to an independent school—a highly privileged school. None the less I sent my children to a comprehensive, of which I was a governor. A good comprehensive has some form of selection—streaming. It does not constitute the dramatic and damaging trauma of failing or passing an 11-plus examination. I make those comments because, if I may say so, the debate so far has been rather dominated—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not propose to answer all the points as it would take too long and I sought to cover a lot of them in my opening remarks, so it would be repetition. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. There have been one or two quite specific questions which I can answer more or less as a yes or no. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, is no. I do not seek to elaborate on that.
	I will emphasise one thing. There were not many schools mentioned—the Royal Belfast Academical Institution was one. It is a well respected boys' grammar school. Twenty per cent of the pupils get C and D grades. No one is arguing that it is not a good school with an academic ethos. In other words, the intake is totally different to what it would have been when Members of your Lordships' House were younger boys.
	Also, just to clear up any doubt, I hope that my remarks referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, are not taken out of context. They certainly were not meant in that way. I do not compare myself as a direct rule Minister to direct rule Ministers 10, 15 and 20 years ago. The pressures on us are nothing like what they were. I fully understand that and in no way was I seeking to demean the fact that security, rule of law and respect for the law are fundamental to a decent society. Without that, Northern Ireland will not be a decent society. It is not a normal civic society today. Some elements are missing. We are seeking to put those building blocks in place.
	It is still the fact that Northern Ireland has fewer graduates at work than anywhere in the UK. This is probably because we are creating the graduates and they are exporting themselves because they do not want to live and work in a society that has been created by has-been politicians who have not actually got together to work. They export themselves to the UK and around the world. I am talking about graduates working in Northern Ireland, not creating graduates. It is a fact that adult literacy rates are poor anyway in the UK. It just so happens that in Northern Ireland they are poorer than anywhere else.
	On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made, I do not have the figures in front of me but I remember seeing them in the early days and speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about them. I am not a Northern Ireland Minister any more, and anyway I was not the Education Minister, but the fact is, I was sitting with my colleagues discussing these issues. Some of the educational attainment among Protestant working-class boys is a damned disgrace. It was quite clear the Protestant working class was not being represented by working-class Protestants. They were being represented by people who were not pushing for those extra resources. That is the only way this could have been brought about. It is a really serious issue and I suspect that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made is probably answered by low educational attainment, but these spivs and crooks certainly know how to manipulate the legal system for extortion. They can add up pounds, shillings and pence, if I can put it in that way. They know how to do blackmail and smuggling. They are not thick and stupid. They may not have an academic qualification but I do not think that is the criterion that one can use to measure this.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips asked me a specific question; of course, if the order fails, the provision he asks about will not come in anyway. But, Article 6(1)(c) provides an assurance that we have a continued commitment to integrated education. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, the curriculum framework will include citizenship and give particular emphasis to encouraging that aspect.
	Finally, it is with some sadness that I point out—and the record can be checked—that at no time during the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, did the words "curriculum" or "entitlement framework" cross his lips. I think that that was very sad.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In spirit, this is an apple-pie amendment, but when you undertake an exercise not dissimilar to that which my noble friend Lord Borrie has just undertaken, you begin to realise that the thing unravels.
	I have tremendous respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. She has been a strong advocate of consumer rights and the rights of the individual to enter into free contracts and to understand the nature of those contracts for much of her time in public life. During one or two discussions over the Dispatch Box, the depth of her experience from a number of non-departmental public bodies has become clear—I suggest that it is beyond peradventure that very few people have held quite as many positions concerning consumer affairs. Obviously, with that comes a great deal of experience.
	However, Amendment No. 33D would so widen the power in Clause 2 that it could be used for securing regulatory functions exercised in a way that complies with the broad principles that regulatory activity must respect, but, in the end, undermines important, possibly fundamental, protective rights that individuals enjoy.
	Having read the amendment and heard what the noble Baroness has to say, I am not quite sure what the nature of the problem that she is trying to tackle is. Of course, it must be right that, in a free society, it is open to us to take reasonable risks in our homes but, with that, we must measure the need to protect people who work in our homes and buildings and ensure that, in our dealings with public bodies and organisations who visit on us, we offer proper protection.
	I am sure that we are all free to exchange goods and services, but the individual consumer, through regulation, must surely be protected from exploitation. I am sure that we are all grateful that we live in a free society where we can enter free agreements, but we also need to be protected by the law so that those who seek to exploit us unreasonably for gain can be held to account through proper legal agreements, and that the terms of those agreements are not easily flouted. We are also all grateful that we live in a free society where private contracts can be entered into without interference by the state.
	The noble Baroness and other opposition Members must know full well that targeted regulation is essential in sophisticated societies such as ours. We have been regaled with occasions when regulatory activities may have gone too far. The whole purpose of the Bill and the Government's better regulation agenda is to tackle bad and excessive regulation. That is exactly what Clause 2 is there for: to tackle how regulators go about their activities to ensure that they are not overzealous and that we do not have overprovision. We make no apologies for targeted regulations. They improve standards in public services, promote competition, ensure fairness at work, help industry and provide protection for consumers and the environment.
	Clause 2 will contribute to that better regulatory aim and purpose by allowing a Minister by order to make provision that he or she considers is to ensure that regulatory functions are carried out in a way that is transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases where action is needed. So the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is already matched by Clause 2.
	It is hard to disagree with the principle behind Amendment No. 33E, but it is too prescriptive and so does not need to be included in the Bill. The Better Regulation Executive in the Cabinet Office is working closely with departments and regulators, challenging them, as we have said, on their regulatory proposals and ensuring that all non-legislative means are considered in the policy development process. The BRE is also challenging departments and regulators on how they conduct their regulatory activities, which Clause 2 seeks to achieve, as does Part 2, which we shall come to in due course.
	All regulatory proposals must be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment. Major proposals are scrutinised and require approval by the panel for regulatory accountability. RIAs and PRA scrutiny, to use the jargon, ensure that the costs and consequences of regulatory proposals have reasonable and proportionate benefits. The Better Regulation Executive is also working with regulators and other bodies on a code of practice for regulators, which will be made statutory under Clause 24. I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness wants to achieve with the amendment but, if we have understood it correctly, I believe we are already achieving it through the regulators' compliance code. A copy of the draft code is available to all who seek it out in the Library and on the BRE website.
	If the noble Baroness has further thoughts on the amendment, perhaps having perused it at her leisure and pleasure, we would be very interested in them and in her contributions, given the breadth of her experience. Having heard that, I hope she will feel confident about withdrawing her amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, from these Benches we share the degree of importance that both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness attach to the work of the Law Commission.
	In the early 1990s your Lordships' House fashioned a system called the Jellicoe committee, which we all thought would solve the problem. Indeed, three or four pieces of legislation went through comfortably before we came up against a proposal on domestic violence—a proposal that proved so controversial in another place that it had to be withdrawn. Thereafter, the Jellicoe committee procedure was abandoned.
	The noble Baroness is right to try and find some new way of expediting good Law Commission proposals, without undermining their credibility by preventing them being properly analysed in Parliament. The building blocks she suggested seem to form a potential foundation for whatever edifice is ultimately constructed.
	Like the noble Baroness, I believe there should be three fundamental mechanisms. The first should be a way of excluding any proposal that is controversial. Taking into account the observations of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, we should bear in mind that "controversial" refers not only to party political controversy but to other sorts as well. The suggestion that we have a process of consultation built into the procedure is a good one.
	Secondly, regarding the parliamentary stage, my view—which may well not prove to be the ultimate solution—is that a joint committee of both Houses should be set up, in which no political party has a majority, and given the power to amend. Thirdly, I believe the noble Baroness's political instincts to be extremely sound in her suggestion that whatever emerges amended from the joint committee should then go to both Houses for final consideration, probably giving both Houses the power to amend further but at one stage only—perhaps Third Reading.
	If we can all agree on those principles, then given a fair wind—and that is perhaps the most unpredictable element of all in trying to do something novel—we may well end up with a procedure that will re-accelerate that marvellous idea of a former highly distinguished Labour Lord High Chancellor, so long ago in the 1960s.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are a number of points noble Lords have raised that it is worth my responding to. It is wonderful to watch the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, designing this procedure. I am quite sure that with the abilities of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, and other noble Lords, we will be able to find a solution.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we did not put the clause in to start discussions. The Law Commission proposals were in the original Clause 1. I am quite happy to eat humble pie and say we got this wrong, which is why I am deleting the clause. I am delighted that in conversations I have had with noble Lords across the House, they have tried to find a solution. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I believe that with a fair wind we might be able to do that. If that is the case, I have no problems about the amount of humble pie that I might eat between now and then.
	As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked what would happen in Scotland. The new procedure will be available for the Scottish Law Commission, but not for those matters that are within the competence of the Edinburgh Parliament, as I understand it. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, nods his head. I trust his judgment on all these questions, so I am sure that I have that right. The noble Baroness raised some very fundamental points. Any Law Commission report must go out for consultation, so the Government would consult in any event. I accept that any changes that need to be made would need to involve the Law Commission. At this stage I do not know how we should do that, but I take the point that the Law Commission will have a strong view, and that that needs to be reflected either in what the Government do or in what a committee does and so on. There is no difference between us on that; we are simply debating how we do it.
	I also accept the point about the late decision. The noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who is not in his place, and I have already deliberated what that might look like. Changes may be made which the Government could not accept or the Law Commission or the House did not like. We need to find ways in which changes can be made and properly reflected. I agree that we have to work out how to deal with controversial issues when they might not be controversial in a party political sense or in your Lordships' House in the broader sense of involving the Cross Benches, but could be controversial for particular stakeholders. Almost inevitably there may be some controversy. I take the point that we have to find a procedure whereby that can be properly reflected and dealt with.
	I do not know whether we should recommit the Bill. I am conscious that it needs to complete its passage speedily and safely. I hope that we will find an appropriate mechanism. Your Lordships' House is extremely good at coming up with a procedure that will enable us to have the debate that noble Lords want. I trust that whatever comes forward will already have had much debate among all interested noble Lords long before it reaches your Lordships' House. We need something that is acceptable not only to your Lordships' House but to another place and particularly to the committees that have so rightly criticised what we have done thus far.
	As I said, I am very grateful to everybody who has participated in this debate. Having eaten humble pie, I find it reassuring that there is a great deal of good will that we should try to find a way through this matter that will enable some very important work that has been done by the Law Commission to find its way appropriately on to the statute book.